Just Mercy – A Response to the Prayer Incident

Next Article
Comments (5)
  1. cairo says:

    I agree with this article. However there are other aspects in this article that has been overlooked. The student has made allegations of assault which need to be looked at.

  2. Amira says:

    A brave article. Well done Kamilia. It’s wonderful to see a person with so much at stake taking the reasonable side!

  3. Anonymous says:

    Islamophobia aside, this article completely overlooks the way in which the student was treated, in a university like LSE there is absolutely no justification for security to treat someone, especially a student in that manner, especially if they are doing something as harmless as praying. The security guard could have waited then politely stated that she can not pray here, or that she needs permission rather than hounding the student in an overtly aggressive way.

    According to this article, there is ‘no evidence’ for Islamophobia but the video makes it clear of the tone and manner that she was dealing with the student. Considering she is probably an experienced security personnel she should know better, not only of how to treat students but especially when it is something to do with someone’s faith, there does need not be rules for her to do her job properly, no amount of rules can cover the day to day situations someone working within security may encounter, it is more so basic etiquette.

    Your article also states that the other security personnel would have ‘done the same,’ this is rather concerning and indicative of the fact that LSE has clearly not trained their security on how to deal and respect students in an appropriate manner who pay £9k+ a year to study at their university.

    Also this article is overtly one-sided, there is more sympathy for an individual who is incapable of managing the responsibility that comes with the job – sure an aggressive response is not warranted but attempting to paint the innocence of someone whose actions are a big wrong, demonstrates how you writing this, have absolutely no understanding of how the student at the time felt.

  4. Anon2 says:

    I agree with anonymous that this article is one sided. The security guard is the only person at fault due to the manner in which she conveyed her message. If it was wrong to pray in that place then what harm comes to the security guard to show respect and allow the the student to complete her act of worship and then make her point if she has a valid one on the rules of praying outside the SU.

    I also agree with the student that if someone had been loitering around then that would be ok, whereas in this case when there is no obstruction or disturbance caused by this student praying ithas caused an issue. It is upsetting that in such a diverse multi-faith society and country with many establishments like universities that these types of acts by someone inconsiderate of ones religion can occur. I do believe that many establishments would see that this was an act of poor judgement on the security guards behalf and would support the students commitment to practice her faith.

    The authors intention albeit good to safeguard someone from being unjustly labelled islamophobic I understand. This I don’t believe would be a stance people would have taken if as aforementioned the respect was given and point made in a manner where the student would not feel marginalised and bullied as seen in the video. The article itself is not focussing on the heart of the matter and is victimising so to say the one at fault.

  5. Anonymous 3 says:

    So by underscoring the fact that the accused is black, she ought never lose her job despite a misdemeanour? This premise is ridiculously patronising to black people. You’re implying that because of the social circumstances of the security guard e.g. the colour of her skin and her wage bracket, she ought to be pardoned for her wrongs. This is such a flawed analysis.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *